dc.contributor.author | George, Tracey E., 1967- | |
dc.contributor.author | Solimine, Michael E, 1956- | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-04-10T16:54:06Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-04-10T16:54:06Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2001 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 9 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 171 (2001) | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1803/6282 | |
dc.description.abstract | This article considers systematically whether the Supreme Court is more likely to review an en banc court of appeals decision than a panel decision. First, we consider Supreme Court review of en banc cases during the Rehnquist Court. Then, in a multivariate empirical analysis of a three-circuit subset of those cases, we control for other variables found to influence the Court's certiorari decision, such as Solicitor General or amicus curiae support for the certiorari petition, a dissent from the court of appeal's opinion, an outcome contrary to the Court's ideological composition, and an intercircuit conflict. The discussion is situated in a larger context of how legal scholars and political scientists have addressed the Rehnquist Court's shrunken caseload from both empirical and policy perspectives. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1 PDF (35 pages) | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Supreme Court Economic Review | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | United States. Supreme Court -- History | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Rehnquist, William H., 1924-2005 | en_US |
dc.title | Supreme Court Monitoring of the United States Courts of Appeals En Banc | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |